Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-09-03
COUNTY ASSESSMENTS.
Butte, Suffer and Yolo County Officisis
Explain Their Assessments.


the counties of Sacramento, Butte, Yolt
and Suffer. The Supervisors and Assessor
J of Sacramento county did not Put in an
appearance. Supervisor McMulIen me-
Mr.. Wilcoxson, Chairman of the State
Board of Equalization, and said the Sacra.
mento officials would not be present, owina
to the fact that they had not received of
, fetal notification. Mr.. Wilcoxson pro.
duced a postal card from Sacramento
J County Clerk, acknowledging receipt Of
the notice Mr. McMullen then asked
that another day be set for the hearing
owing to the absence from the city of the
President of the Board of Supervisors 1t
was finally agreed that the Sacramento
officials could be heard some evening next
week.
Butte county was represented by two OF
her Supervisors, her Tax Collector and
Judge .. G. Pratt. The latter made a
lengthy argument in favor of the assess
ment as it now stands, and gave a brief and
comprehensive statement of relative values
| of land. While there may be isolated cases
OF property assessed too low, this was more
| than balanced by other parcels assessed
above their value.
1 The Assessor of Solano county and two
of his Supervisors were here to show cause
why the assessment of that county as re-
ported by the Assessor should not be in
| creased. The Assessor said he did not as
sess orchards and vineyards the first and
second years after planting, and he sup
| posed that was the rule throughout the
State. He was assured by the State Board
| OF Equalization that he was mistaken. As
| soon as an orchard or a vineyard is planted
| the trees and vines must be regarded as
| Improvements and assessed as SUCH He
| assessed alfalfa as improvements, but had
but very little of it in his county. As near
as he could, he assessed lands at 75 per
cent of their cash value. The land in the
neighborhood of Vacaville he assessed at
! $500 an acre. Some of this land is now
| selling at from $500 to 5000 per acre, and
next year will be assessed higher. Bearing
orchards and vineyards were assessed 1915
| per acre, that is, $500 for the land and S75
Tor the Improvement. A large portion of
| the county was salt marsh and untillable
| hills. The county, in the estimation of the
Assessor and Supervisors, was assessed
high enough, and as they left one of them
said to a member of the Board of Equaliza-
ton: Whatever you do, please keep your
| fins off of Solano."
| Suffer county was next called, and the
Assessor and Chairman of the Board of
| Supervisors responded. This county fell
| Sl31, 900 short of last years assessment,
| and the Assessor was asked to explain why
Suffer was going back while other counties
were advancing. His reply was that the
| real estate and improvements were as high
| as the assessment of the former year, but
the drop off, was in personal property,
! wheat and solvent credits. 1t was ascer-
tanned, however, that he assessed stock cat
tie at an average of $11 per head, while the
assessment of the other counties ranged
| from Sl2 so to $50. The Assessor claimed,
however, that he graded cattle differently
| from some, and in stock cattle only in
cluded yearlings and inferior grades The
| entire merchandise of the county is put
down at $29,340. He claimed that this was
at least 10 per cent. of the entire stock of
| goods carried in the mercantile establish
| ments of the county, they, in every in
! stance, being only country stores. The or
chards and vineyards of the county are few
in number. The land is assessed at about
$40, and the young vines and orchards as
follows: First year set out, IS; yearlings,
So; two years old, SIC; three years old, S24;
four years old, $780, five years old, $40; six
years old and thereafter as long as in their
prime, $50. He estimated the extent of the
bearing orchards and vineyards in the
county at 1880. The best orchard and
vineyard land in the county he assessed at
$50 per acre. He was satisfied this was
Hlilc lOW, II WOulu De elevated
next year. He made this valuation
after a consultation with the Board of
Supervisors, and gave his reasons therefor.
| 1t was in Levee District No. l, where 40
| 600 acres of land had been reclaimed at an
| expense of over S800,0 and that there
| was at this time a bonded debt hanging
| over the district of S245,0OO. The levee
tax this year, outside of the State and
county tax, will be 81 So The people in
that district have been long sufferers from
| floods, and have been Impoverished with
taxation. Their fax four years ago was
| State and county. 81 so; special school
tax, % cents; levee tax, 81. Total, IS 10.
On top of this remarked the Assessor. we
are paying 81 900 month into the anti
| debris fight to save our rivers which is
direct benefit to the commerce of the State,
and for which due allowance ought TO be
made. If our levees give way this winter,
all the land you will be able to see from
the Courthouse spire in Yuba City will be
a narrow strip along the levee, and the
Buttes in the distance There are many
| other leyee districts in the county-at least
$50, 900 acres-all subject to overflow when
| floods like those of 62 or Isl come along
and all subject to heavy levee tax. While
| this land inside the levee is assessed low
| that remaining in the tules-which is
two-fifths of the county-is assessed for
81 so an acre. while it is not worth 81 90
The reason they don't have boom in SUIT
ter county, the Assessor said, was that the
leeves were so high that a stranger could
| not get over them.
Whats the matter with Yolo ?" said
| Chairman Wilcoxson when the Assessor of
| that county arose to defend the values he
had placed upon property. I'VE think we
are assessed high enough" was the reply,
that is high enough on the LIST of MARCH,
last. If you take in the big boom we have
| got now, then there is quite difference"
'Yolo is rich county, and we cannot un-
derstand your valuations" was remarked
by a member of the Board, who read a
number of appraisements of estates and
| then the value placed upon the same prop
erty by the Assessor, showing that the AS
SCISSOR had been marking down instead
of booming Mr.. Gaffey asked what
was the cause of the decrease in the stock of
wines and brandies One of the Supervisors
called Mr.! Gaffey's attention to the fact
that they had an election last fall, and
Yolo was classed as Democratic This
seemed to be a sufficient explanation, as
the matter was dropped. When asked
how 1t was that so little coin was assessed.
he replied that all the wealthy citizens of
1olo had greenbacks at noon on the first
Monday in March. The best wine and
|
5000 an acre, and the trees and vines, in
accordance to age and bearing, from $40 to
$50 per acre. The frut orchards and i'm
provements near Davisville were assessed
at S175 per acre. The chief industry of the
county was wheat producing. The second
industry was Horticulture.
a MOONLIGHT RIDE.-Last Wednesday
evening the members of the Pro- Quito
Club took moonlight ride, starting from
the residence of James Hatch, 1922 street
at $50 o'clock, they took the road to Florin
arriving at Jones Hall at 1920. There
dancing was in order until II o'clock, when
the Club sat down to a bountiful repast, to
which they did ample justice. After few
more dances the wagons started for home
I and left the members at their respective
homes. Among those present were chape-
, rones Mrs. Fitch and Mrs. Todhunter; Miss
, Florence Burnett, Irma Fitch. May Gill
Sophia Jones, Lottie Parker, Lille Pember
Minnie Todhunter, Grace Hatch, Bessie
Bowers, Ida May, Emma Groth, Hattie
Roth Masters VIM. Larkin, Albert Pait
, Henry May, George Burnett Geo. Clarke
Edwin Hevener, John Hillhouse Stephen
Hopkins, Frank Lafferty, Rolfe Lowry
Charles Newman, Edwin Olney, Essit
! n -